where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -
1239 views
Technical Discussions
Luis Ganhao
Engineering,
USA, Joined Sep 2008, 25

Luis Ganhao

Engineering,
USA,
Joined Sep 2008
25
15:53 Mar-12-2009
Interpretatio of code case 2235

I have the following question in accordance with the code case 2235 for materials whose thickness is below 1 inch, the Table 1 from code case 2235 should be used, now if we need reject an indication that its dimensions are greater than the length (L ) and the ratio a /t recommended by the Table 1. Or is it sufficient if the L is higher, but the ratio is lower or the opposite?



Thanks

 
 Reply 
 
Nigel Armstrong
Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom, Joined Oct 2000, 1096

Nigel Armstrong

Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom,
Joined Oct 2000
1096
18:58 Mar-14-2009
Re: Interpretatio of code case 2235
In Reply to Luis Ganhao at 15:53 Mar-12-2009 (Opening).

Hi Luis

I held off answering as I thought Ed Ginzel or Michael Moles or other notable experts on automated UT may answer. However you have got me - apologies!.

I think it is an either/or sutuation, that is if the defect exceeds either of the maximum allowable dimensions (a/t or l) then it is unacceptable. Any other interpretation of the criteria leads to the conclusion that a complete through-wall rupture of 6,3mm length is acceptable as it is less than 6.4mm This cannot be the case. Thus a defect greater than 6.4mm but meeting the remaining fraction wall thickness requirement of Table 1 is also rejectable. The Owner should be aware that using 2235 on thinner materials does not mean a relaxation of maximum allowable flaw sizes.

Interested to hear how you experience the application of 2235 acceptance criteria.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1282

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1282
20:07 Mar-14-2009
Re: Interpretatio of code case 2235
In Reply to Nigel Armstrong at 18:58 Mar-14-2009 .

Notable expert...Hmmm. Thanks Nigel.
Actually there is a clause in CC2235-9 that indictes an absolute maximum and that is the limit I have assumed is to be used regardless of flaw height. The Code Case document is divided into several "sections" with the main sections "lettered" in lower case". The one identified as (i) is Data analysis and acceptance criteria. (i)4(c) addresses subsurface flaws and states "Subsurface Flaws. Flaw length (l) shall not exceed 4t."
Therefore for amplitude-based techniques any flaw over 20% reference is investigated and if it has a legth greater than 4t would be unacceptable. As for non-amplitude-based techniques (like TOFD) the identification of ANY flaw with length greater than 4t is unacceptable. TOFD is a great technique for easy analysis but there can be a severe penalty for the wide beam it uses. Small intermittent flaws can be blended together in TOFD if the spacing is small making an intermittent flaw that could be acceptable to pulse-echo unacceptable to TOFD. e.g. small aligned pores 1mm diameter separated by 4-5mm COULD appear like a continuous indication.

 
 Reply 
 
Joel Norman
NDT Inspector
Canada, Joined Jun 2008, 5

Joel Norman

NDT Inspector
Canada,
Joined Jun 2008
5
22:31 Mar-16-2009
Re: Interpretatio of code case 2235
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 20:07 Mar-14-2009 .

If the code case allows a maximum defect that is 4t in length for thnickness less than 1", what is the purpose of the 6.4mm length limit in table 1 (CC 2235-9)?

 
 Reply 
 
Tyson Lemke, EIT
Tyson Lemke, EIT
19:23 Mar-20-2009
Re: Interpretatio of code case 2235
In Reply to Joel Norman at 22:31 Mar-16-2009 .

Assuming Table 1 acts the same as Table 2 then the first column decides whether you apply the second column. Therefore if your a/t ratio is >0.143 then your l cannot be over 6.4 mm.

4t is an additional criteria to the tables. Therefore for an 1" length could not be 4". Since anything over an 1" on the 4t applys. Does it make practical sense to reject a 0.25" on a 1", when 4" length reject is allowable on an 1 1/8" thick material?

 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

FAAST-PA! OEM Patented phased Array for high speed UT inspection

Multiangle, Multifocus, Multifrequency, Multibeam. Instead of stacking UT electronics and having m
...
any PA probes, FAAST-PA is able to transmit all delay laws within ONE single shot in Real time.
>

Compact NDT inspection-heads for measurements with active thermography

The compact inspection head is suitable for thermographic ndt tasks. The uncooled infrared camera
...
is specially developed for NDI-tasks and offers a thermal sensitivity until now known only from thermal imagers with cooled detector. All required components and functions are integrated into the inspection-head. You will only need an ethernet cable to connect the sensor with the evaluation system.
>

OmniScan™ X3 flaw detector

The OmniScan X3 flaw detector is a complete phased array toolbox. Powerful tools, like total focus
...
ing method (TFM) images and advanced visualization capabilities, enable you to complete your inspection with greater confidence.
>

FD800 Bench Top Flaw Detectors

The bench-top FD800 flaw detector range combines state-of-the-art flaw detection with advanced mater
...
ial thickness capabilities. Designed for use in the laboratory these gauges are the tool you need for all your flaw detecting needs.
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window